Extension of Time on a Promissory Note; SUPERIOR COURT SPECIAL TREM. Before Justice Rosworth.

Horace J. Fairchild et al vs. George W. Warren et al -- An argument made at the maturity of a note, between the maker and holder, that upon payment of part of the note and an agreement to pay the residue with interest, four months thereafter, to extend the time of payment of such residue for four months, and payment and acceptance of the portion, is not sufficient consideration to render the agreement to extend the time of payment obligatory. The holder of the note obtains nothing to which he was not entitled, and the maker parts with nothing that he had a right to withhold. Motion granted with $10 costs.

We are continually improving the quality of our text archives. Please send feedback, error reports,
and suggestions to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

A version of this archives appears in print on May 16, 1861, on Page 2 of the New York edition with the headline: Extension of Time on a Promissory Note; SUPERIOR COURT SPECIAL TREM. Before Justice Rosworth. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe